Mr. Till proposes that we believe that the impetus behind evil is Christianity. He asks the question, "If Christianity is not to blame for the activities of radical elements in our society, then why is it that these elements are almost always associated with organizations that have Bible-based beliefs" (Who's to Blame? TSR, January/February 1999)?
Actually, Mr. Till asks two questions, purposely slanted, that he joins together knowing that he can easily confuse simple minded skeptics who tend to emote more than think. If Christianity is not to blame for the activities of radical elements in our society, then who is? The question deserves an answer. Why is it that these elements are almost always [according to Till] associated with organizations that have Bible-based beliefs? Is this the conclusion of a scientific investigation or the blustering of a disgruntled old man?
Is it true that radical elements are almost always associated with organizations that have Bible-based beliefs?
When we look at the 20th century, we find that it is the skeptics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind. As examples, we can readily cite the handiwork of Stalin in Russia, the communists in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia. Collectively, those involved in just these three examples rejected the Bible and what it teaches and accounted for the deaths of some 50 million innocent people. If one is honestly looking for radical elements with a reputation for atrocities, one need look no further than to those who reject the Bible--skeptics.
While I have not researched the atrocities committed by skeptics in previous centuries, I suspect that their accomplishments parallel that which we observe in this century. Christianity, by contrast, has been a force opposing the spread of a variety of evils devised by skeptics who constantly denigrate the Bible in order to promote their atrocities. One can easily see that Christianity has been a positive force in the world. It is difficult to comprehend the atrocities that skeptics might have committed in the absence of the constraining influence of Christianity.
Mr. Till imagines a relationship that he wants to exist but cannot prove. He does not provide any data, other than a few anecdotes, to support his case nor does he attempt a scientific investigation. Neither do I, but I am not making outlandish accusations. He mostly makes it up as he goes. He fantasizes on a cause and proclaims fanatically that he must certainly be right. The mentality of the skeptic seems well suited to the writing of such diatribes.
There are rational explanations opposing the conclusion that Mr. Till puts forth. The most obvious is that the relationships noted by Till are completely random. Maybe, the real problem lies in a personality disorder unique to men. Perhaps the teaching of evolution in the schools with its mantra, Survival of the Fittest, accounts for the Paul Hills of the world. Even if it appears that something almost always seems to occur, no competent investigator would jump to the conclusion that a causal relationship exists, without some form of proof. That Mr. Till jumps to conclusions is warning enough that his pronouncements should not be taken seriously.
Perhaps the relationship is one of perception and not reality. The President carries a large Bible when he goes to church knowing that it will be prominently displayed when the cameras roll. Does this mean that the President is a Bible believer, or does he merely want to create the impression that he is?
Similarly, if a person wants to do evil, would it not be advantageous for that person to create the perception that he seeks to do good? The successful con artist will always tell the truth before he proposes a lie. Consequently, we should not be surprised that people who want to do evil surround themselves with religious trappings in a clever attempt to disguise their true plans. Mr. Till likes to tell us that he was once religious (by his definition) as if that should mean something. Perhaps his religiosity was no more than a cloak to hide his true character until he got what he wanted or was foiled in the attempt.
The infamous Fred Phelps parades around the country with signs that say God Hates Fags. Certainly, God hates fags, but God also hates liars, adulterers, and thieves. Why doesn't Fred Phelps, or anyone else, picket the White House with a sign that says God Hates Adulterers? If Christianity is what prompts Mr. Phelps to act, then we should expect to see Christianity being the impetus for other people to respond in a similar vein against liars and thieves and everything else that the Bible says is evil? I find it suspicious that Mr. Till concludes that Christianity inspires primarily the likes of the Fred Phelps' of the world.
Maybe Fred Phelps has always personally hated homosexuals and merely uses the Bible to give an air of legitimacy to his hatred. He would not be the first to do so. Mr. Till would not be the first skeptic to mistake a casual relationship for a causal relationship. Skeptics can be heavy on emotion and short on logic.
If we survey the radical elements and the atrocities that they have committed in just the last 100 years, we see that the great majority of those elements share a skepticism of the Bible. Christianity has not caused these people to act in this manner. Rather, Christianity has been an important force limiting the damage that skeptics would otherwise have inflicted on their innocent victims.
If Christianity is not to blame for the activities of radical elements in our society, then what is? How do we explain the Paul Hills of the world and the Joseph Stalins? Were the killing fields of Cambodia inspired by Christianity? One man kills several nurses in Chicago and another climbs a tower in Texas and begins shooting people. Perhaps, such people are nothing more than skeptics who could not stomach the Biblical injunction to Love Thy Neighbor and eventually went off the deep end. If so, should we, as Till suggests, prevent Christianity from proclaiming its message of love?
Recalling the great atrocities of those who, like Mr. Till, proudly profess their skepticism of what the Bible says, it hardly seems defensible to conclude that Christianity is the cause. Skeptics of the Bible have proven themselves capable of great evil. Mr. Till may cite himself as an exception, but that merely proves that his prior Biblical training was not entirely wasted.
So, what causes people to do evil? The Bible offers an explanation. It tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). People are inherently wicked, not inherently good. Every parent knows this. We do not have to teach our children to do wrong, but we must constantly teach them the right thing to do. Further, the Bible says that the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Ps. 58:3) In other words, people are natural born skeptics who reject the Bible. The world desperately needs Christianity and its proclamation of Biblical truth if it is to resist the evil that skeptics will promote and be able to turn the wicked from their evil ways.
How do we account for the ability of skeptics like Stalin to accomplish such atrocities? The Bible tells us that the wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted (Ps. 12:8). Recent events in the United States offer a vivid example of this. This nation exalted a man, Bill Clinton, by electing him to the Presidency. He then surrounded himself with men and women who turned their heads and looked the other way at the evil he committed. So it was with Stalin. He surrounded himself with people who were just as wicked as himself.
When confronted with the Bill Clintons and Paul Hills of the world, the Bible says of those who justify the wicked and condemn the just that they are an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 17:15). This is the message of Christianity.
What does Christianity really advocate? Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil (Ps. 37:8). Devise not evil against thy neighbor (Prov. 3:29). The Biblical injunction and central teaching of Christianity has always been love thy neighbor. There is no room in Christianity for people who carry a Bible to church on Sunday and engage in sexual immorality on Monday. There is no room in Christianity for the Paul Hills and Fred Phelps' who use Christianity as a cover for advancing their personal agendas.
Who is to blame? One thing is certain. It is not Christianity.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20902; e-mail RHutchin@AOL.com)
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: For a free subscription to The Skeptical
Review, e-mail
jftill@midwest.net or write to P. O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717.
